Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 280 posts

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#191

Post by PatentTroll »

ballenf wrote: post #172
paulajohnson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that filing baseless lawsuits was a tort. Furthermore attorneys are required to make a good-faith investigation of their client's case and refuse to take part in frivolous lawsuits. This may be a pretty low bar, but it sounds like Acushnet's attorneys may be failing to clear it.

From personal experience defending such suits, the bar is effectively so low to be imperceptibly higher than ground level. In the rare case it would be relevant, it's just as expensive or moreso to make that claim as defend the underlying case. In this case, based on just reading the article alone, it would be a very hard claim to make against Acushnet. Even if the patents could be invalidated, until they are they ha…

This. The standards of vexatious litgtation are quite high, as they out to be. Otherwise every defendant would cry tort, and legitimately harmed parties would be dissuaded from using the legal system.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#192

Post by blincoln »

yourapostasy wrote: post #121
snissn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dude just go to dailies

Can't yet, much as I'd like. :-( I require torics, and for some reason the many dailies we tried wouldn't stay in their "up" orientation. My optometrist said that in a year or two, he thinks some of the newer dailies in the development pipeline might address my experience, and we'll try dailies again at that time. Has something to do with the weighting of the lenses, I gathered from overhearing his conversation with…

Did you try Biofinity toric lenses? That's what I've been using for several years after I started having that exact problem.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#193

Post by PatentTroll »

microcolonel wrote: post #64
gthtjtkt wrote: post #9

> Companies with deep pockets lock down the market by making it too expensive for competitors to operate and to offer lower-priced yet quality products. It is a legitimate tactic; even those who succumb to it don’t really begrudge the approach. Who the hell wrote this article, the CEO of Acushnet? "Don't get the wrong idea, small businesses love being sued over frivolous patents they never infringed upon!"

The source of commentary for this article is pretty suspect, I mean, how did Quartz find golf-patents.com ? It seems like the sort of domain which would be set up by a golf patent troll to support a story about them holding patents. The whois data for golf-patents.com lean toward this line of reasoning. The domain appears to be registered to an IP law firm. I'm not going to claim that they are a troll or a firm which…

Doubtful. According to this site, the author is an editor at landslide magazine, a legitimate publication of the ABA: http://invention-protection.com/ip/partners/david_dawsey.htm...

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#194

Post by nommm-nommm »

maxsilver wrote: post #178
nommm-nommm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense, unless you were a kid why would you have to get your glasses "re-done" every year? I've been wearing the same prescription for a decade and the same plastic frames for seven years. I go to the ophthalmologist every two years to get my optic drusen looked at and my corrected vision is fine. If I didn't go for my drusen I would have no reason to go. If your vision is so unstable that you were getti…

> This makes no sense, unless you were a kid why would you have to get your glasses "re-done" every year? I don't know about the parent poster above, but my vision is slowly but consistently getting worse every year, for the last five years now. I get my glasses "re-done" each year because my prescription has changed (gotten slightly stronger) each year, and it's cheaper to get new glasses than to re-lens old ones. I…

In that case LASIK isn't going to last long, hence you're a poor candidate for LASIK if you're needing a new prescription that often.

I just looked it up and the LASIK website said a stable prescription for at least two years is required.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#195

Post by nommm-nommm »

pc86 wrote: post #162
ohbleek wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you get your Informaton but for one, in order to re-order contact lenses you must have a current rx (within 1-2 years) and it is standard to get an eye exam every year. Many people have eyesight that progressively gets worse and require a new rx yearly.

> Many people have eyesight that progressively gets worse and require a new rx yearly. And many people have had the same prescription for 4-5 years or more, and don't have eyes that continue to get worse. I think the GP's point was that either your eyes continue to get worse every year, and you need new glasses, and LASIK probably won't last forever , or you don't, and LASIK is a one-time expense that will take quite…

Yes, exactly, thank you.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#196

Post by PatentTroll »

hkmurakami wrote: post #12

This article is very sparse on details. For one, the factory that makes the Costco balls primarily makes Taylor Made balls. The manufacturer is a Korean company that used its excess capacity to make Costco's balls. Taylor Made sells premium balls so they're pressuring the manufacturer to not do this in the future. Also i haven't seen any details about Costco having a golf ball design team. Where did this design come…

Make use sell or import are all patent infringement. Costco is at least selling, likely importing.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#197

Post by PatentTroll »

xupybd wrote: post #2

This shows everything wrong with IP today. There should be no place for legal bullying. Especially when it's as simple as crushing competitors under litigation costs.

Well what if the balls performance is due to patented innovations that the company wants to protect? We don't know the facts here, just some blogs opinion.

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#198

Post by iicc »

wapz wrote: post #127
computator wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not recommended by the manufacturer or eye doctor I never found a technical explanation of why you shouldn't reuse dailies after overnight cleaning. I looked at papers, manufacturers' websites, and spoke to two ophthalmologists. Though not a safety issue, my own experience is that dailies are more fragile than long-term lenses. (Could this be deliberate?) They fit less comfortably after a week of reuse. Also, they…

My personal belief is that since they are made more fragile ( I believe it's intentional), you risk the contact tearing while in your eye or not keeping the shape which could maybe cause a deformation to your cornea/eye(?) if used for a prolong time. I only think this because I always swam with my 2 week disposables in and my eye doctor got 'angry' when he saw my contacts were a little deformed from water exposure.

It's not the contact tearing that causes issues, it's infection.

eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthamoeba_keratitis

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#199

Post by shpx »

ada1981 wrote: post #155
eps wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A risk of ending up with halos is not worth it.

If you get LASEK vs. LASIK halos aren't a problem. I had LASEK done perhaps 8 years ago, and my eyes went from 20/400 to 20/15 overnight. The entire procedure was incredible including an HD prescription profile generated by scanning your entire eye. The process is $4k-$5k but with financing comes down to about the same you spend on glasses or contacts annually. No risk of halos as there is no "flap" cut like with LAS…

If you're considering this, you might want to read the comments on [0][1][2], wikipedia[3] maybe also a bit about how this surgery is marketed [4]

Personally, I wouldn't get any surgery with a marketing department on principle.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13024352

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9941566

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5218268

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorefractive_keratectomy#Co...

[4] http://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/news/print/ocular-surger...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12637420

Re: A lawsuit over Costco golf balls

#200

Post by Humdeee »

feintruled wrote: post #129
electrum wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get LASIK. Having perfect eyesight and not having to deal with contacts or glasses is worth every penny.

Amen, brother. I struggled with contacts for the longest time, ditching them and getting lasered was the biggest life upgrade I could've imagined. Small haloing at night is a tiny price to pay. Everyone is different of course. My contacts were getting increasingly uncomfortable for me, so it made sense in my situation.

To this day, LASIK has been by dollar value, far and away the best thing I've ever done. I've been the tipping point to convince a few of my friends to get it done as well. I have no side effects, a few years after.
Post reply on HN